Why is it OK for 20% of the country's population to terrorize, oppress, rape, exploit and enslave the remaining 80% as long as they stay inside the country's borders, but it's not OK for the US to kill the 20% that's doing the oppressing and let the remaining 80% start from scratch?
Who died and made you God? Who are you to determine the future of others? Who makes you so superior that you know what's best? You are sounding more and more out there.
You can ask all the above questions to the 20% of the population that is oppressing the 80% of their fellow citizens.
But instead, please answer the question - why do you think it is OK for that 20% (or less) of the population of a given country to oppress the remaining 80%+, but it is not OK for the US to oppress the 20%?
That was not your original question. You asked if I thought we had a right to interfere when we saw bad things going on in another country.
To answer your question..........I don't like it at all when the 20% oppress the 80%.
In other words, why is it OK for citizens of a given country to abuse and kill their fellow citizens, but not OK for the US to abuse and kill the abusers?
Because I firmly believe there are good reasons for international law and it should be respected. I also believe there are good reasons for respecting the sovereignty of every nation. I firmly believe that the US does not have the qualities assigned to a god, and for that reason, is not qualified to take on the role of the white knight.
Because the US does not always show good judgement in these matters. We are not saints. And we have a lot of work to do here.
Of course that is correct, it implies intervention in another country's affairs should be done with great planning, preparation and cause. It doesn't, however, rule it out under any circumstance (which was your conclusion, which perhaps you should reconsider).
Yes, it does............we will always have our own self interest at heart. I don't care how pure of heart the leader may seem. And that may or may not benefit the citizenry of another country.
I'm not saying intervention in another country's affairs should be done lightly, and it seldom is, but there are certainly some cases where it is a good policy.
IMO there is never good reason. And if it is done, it should be done as a consortium of equal nations that can act as a check and balance system with each other.........and not like it was done in Iraq.........a coalition of the willing. Why do you think Bush was so afraid to make the UK, France and Germany equal partners in the venture? Why he picked so many lesser nations to be a part of the coalition?
And lastly, your views border on megalomania...........which supports the argument that power corrupts. |
